Best Of
Recent comments
- Ummm, no.
The rightness or
2 weeks 16 hours ago - I recently saw the re-trial
2 weeks 17 hours ago - I am a conservative who did
2 weeks 18 hours ago - Amen.
We're called to serve
2 weeks 3 days ago - I have to disagree with your
2 weeks 6 days ago - To break up the monotony of
3 weeks 3 days ago - Although I am a conservative
3 weeks 4 days ago - Been reading your blogs,
3 weeks 6 days ago - Excellent post, Will.
3 weeks 6 days ago - Thanks for the reminder,
3 weeks 6 days ago
Friends of GWH
Subscribe
Recent blog posts
- Evangelicals and the Future of Politics: Wise Words from Joel Hunter
- Election 2008: The Day After
- The 2008 Good Will Hinton Voting Guide
- Dumb Reasons To Not Vote For Barack Obama
- The Immorality of the Housing Bailout
- Random Non-Partisan Thought of the Day
- Good: Bad on the Election and Voting
- Good Will Hinton Interviews Eric Metaxas
- Good Will Hinton Interviews Bridget Kibbey
- More On Obama and the Ayers Non-Story
Recommended Blogs
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 72 guests online.
User login
About Michael Dunaway
In case you were wondering...
...what a rational, reasonable, stunningly intelligent supporter of the War in Iraq has to say about it, I strongly urge you to read Victor Davis Hanson's piece in National Review Online.
Hanson founded the Classics Department at Cal-Fresno and is an expert on military history. He's also certainly no shill for Bush, as NRO fans know.
I sincerely doubt anyone here will change anyone's mind on the Iraq war, at least not anytime soon. But it's good for both sides to look beyond their stereotypes about their opponents and see a reasonable case being made.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.goodwillhinton.com/trackback/421
Comments
I'm not buying it Michael.
I'm not buying it Michael. VDH has created a straw-man argument in saying that Republicans/conservatives now take the attitude of "to hell with the Iraqis". I haven't heard nor felt that sentiment at all from Republican/conservative friends of mine. I think instead the more common sentiment is becoming embarrassment of how we so completely botched the Iraq War.
Overstated (intentionally)
He's intentionally using that shocking quote to get at a much more muted voice in the back of everyone's head. Do you doubt that if Iraq were full of white people, our attitudes would be very, very different? It's the same reason Bosnia/Kosovo is different from Darfur, and the same reason we celebrate "the end of Communism" while ignoring the billion people still under its boot in China. I don't subscribe to the "racist America" theory; I don't think we actively hate these people. But I do think that they're just different enough from us that we lose some of the urgency around the idea of helping them.
The Problem for Republicans
I do not think that color of the people of Iraq is the real problem for Republicans in their distress at the way the war has proceeded. It seems to me that Republicans are embarrassed that the Bush administration did not do a better job. Which begs the question of whether a better job could have been done, given many variables, including that of Islam and how those in that religion relate to government. Also, Republicans, and really that includes the Bush administration, are baffled that the Iraqis themselves have not done a better "job" with what is seen as a chance given. That is, we overthrow your despot, and then you guys take up freedom and democracy and run with it. They did not, we don't know what to do about that.
I think we do little or nothing about Darfur because we are already over-extended. Also, meddling in an Islamic nation is now seen as touching a tar-baby and we do NOT want another one to be stuck to.
Finally, China is not now communist in any economic terms. It is politically authoritarian, and perhaps has a fascist/national socialist economy. The situation is improving, therefore. We do all we can to encourage their inclination to private ownership, even if their form of "capitalism" seems a bit murky and thuggish to us. The hope is that China will continue to improve on its own and looking at the numbers of people there, and what their history has been when they had no central despot ruling them, this very gradual move to freedom may be the best option we, and they, have got. What else would we do for the Chinese people, anyway?
Kate Pitrone
I think Kate touches on the right point...
when she writes "begs the question of whether a better job could have been done". The problem is not what color skin the Iraqis have or what Bush & Co. have done to botch Iraq since they invaded - the problem is that they invaded at all. There never was a "victory" to be had there, which is precisely why the factors that would lead to one have never been defined or outlined by the administration.
Elaboration
Could you elaborate a bit on your statement that "there was never any victory to be had there"? Do you mean that it is impossible to overthrow a dictator and install democracy in a country, or that that's not a victory? Or that, for whatever reason, that was not possible in Iraq? Or something else that I'm not getting yet?
It's one thing to overthrow
It's one thing to overthrow a dictator. It is a completely other thing to install a democracy. There is just so much hubris and arrogance in assuming that was ever possible.
Hubris?
Will, it is hubris or hope? If there is a fundamental belief that all people want to be "free" like Americans, then the logic of the "invasion" for democratic ends was a hope that proved to false. Or at least, it is false in the short run. I suppose some people do not consider this the short run, but surely it is when you consider how long it takes a people to change political or cultural thought.
The pressure of immigrants, legal and illegal, at our gates, suggests that there is something about what America is or stands for in the world that inspires hope for some.
Kate Pitrone
It's hubris
Either it's hubris when you assume you can overthrow someone and install the exact government upon them you want or it's hubris when you assume that all people want to be just like Americans are or most likely - the whole thing is hubris.
Unhelpful
I find that post extremely unhelpful. Do you really believe that the Bush administration attempted to "install the exact government upon" the Iraqis that the administration wanted? Do you really believe that anyone on the right believes that "all people want to be just like Americans are"?
I do.
Michael,
This may sound like I am yelling and screaming, but the yelling and screaming ended long ago. To ask the question is as if you know nothing about the former Iraqi constitution, international law as it relates to prohibitions on changing the laws of an occuupoied territory, and the CPA and its drafting an enacting the current Iraqi constitution. So please, tell me, why are we trying to 'transform Iraq into a democracy' today, in the broadest sense, if that is not the type of government that we wanted to see in Iraq when we toppled their government? In a more narrow sense, why did we tear up the Iraqi constitution and impose a new one, one that creates the very form of government we thought they should have? Why did we prevent the Iraqi's from changing the constitution that we drafted and that Paul Bremmer imposed upon the Iraqi people? To suggest that it is "unhelpful" to recognize the US role in drafting and implementing the current Iraqi constitution (a constitution that fosters the ethnic tensions and civil war we are seeing) is astounding.
And the article you cited, along with Kate's comment, suggest that some people on the right do believe that people want to be just like Americans are.
r.johnson
Words matter
Insisting that the new government be democratic, in the true sense of the word (ie, not just one person one vote) is a far cry from "exactly the kind of government we want." And are you arguing that the Iraqis had NO voice in the formation of their new government? I'd argue they had more voice than any conquered nation, ever (okay, that's probably an overstatement -- nearly any conquered nation).
And I think it's ludicrous to equate an acknowledgment (Kate's) of the staggeringly self-evident successes of American government and society (which far outweigh its failures, IMHO) with believing that "people want to be just like Americans are." I'd like to be more like Mother Teresa, but I'm not going to get a sex change and become a nun. More to the point, I'm sure she wouldn't want me to.
"You know what I meant," you or guru might respond, but I think that's poisonous to discourse (if you were, in fact, to say it). Words matter. Words mean things.
Surreal
Words matter- Maybe that is why I am at a loss for words in describing how surreal your comment was. Don't you see the problem with forcing a form of government upon a conquered nation? Don't you see a problem with forcing a form of government upon a conquered nation and calling it a 'democracy'? International law strictly prohibits a conquering nation from altering the laws of a nation they conquer, so why is it 'ok' for us to do it with democracy and 'wrong' for the Soviet Union to do it with communism? Can you give me one example, in the last two hundred years, where a conquering power imposed its favored form of government upon the conquered nation and it was considered 'acceptable' under law? Even the Soviets described their actions in benevelolent terms, just as you describe US actions.
And no, the Iraqi's did not have any meaningful say in their form of government. We drafted their constitution and prevented them from changing it. That doesn't sound very "democratic" to me. Telling the Iraqi's they could approve it or reject it (in its entirety) is not a meaningful say in its formation. Lets not forget that we were promising certain revisions and changes, and when democracy reared its ugly head under the constitution we drafted, it meant that the Shia had the numerical superiority (enshrined by the constitution we drafted) to wage war on the Sunnis with no real political counterweight.
And that private ownership of natural resources, that provision which means that the Shia have no incentive or obligation to share their oil wealth with their Sunni neighbors means that the Sunni provinces will continue to be 'failed states.' But I guess that is just the benevolence that democracy brings to Iraq.
Re-read the article you cited. Your comments on 'wanting to be American' fly in the face of the praise you offered for the piece earlier.
r.johnson
Do Germany and Japan after
Do Germany and Japan after WWII count as nations that were conquered and had forms of government imposed upon them with little if any condemnation?
Almost, but not quite.
Will,
Setting aside for the moment the historical circumstances, Germany and Japan are the closest examples, but do not exactly fit. (I had Japan in mind when I posted that comment.) In Germany, for example, the Germans formed a new government following World War I (the Weimar Republic), and after the burning of the Reichstag, the Nazi's pushed through 'emergency measures' that dramatically altered the form of government. Following World War II, yes, a 'new form' of government was formed (one that resembled the republican form previously adopted), but we did not impose our 'favored form' and it was handled in a far different fashion than Iraq. In Germany, as the occupying powers granted Germany greater freedoms, the Germans drafted their "Basic Law". The Basic Law was not intended as a formal constituition, but as a provisional rule while the country was divided and occupied by two foreign powers. Yes, portions of the basic law mirror our form of government, but the main difference is that the Germans could decide what was in or out of the Basic Law, with the Allies placing a few 'conditions for approval' (i.e. rejection of notions of Germans as the master race) on the drafting. Contrast that with Iraq, where we drafted the vast majority of the constitution and told them they must vote it up or down, and that they could not change certain provisions, ever.
Japan is a little closer in my mind, but again can be distinguished. Prior to WWII, Japan was goverened by the Meiji Constitution. After the war, the Japanese were given the opportunity to re-draft their constitution, and simply 'tweaked' their existing one. MacArthur rejected it and two US senior army officers drafted a 'new' constitution, although they did use provisions proposed by the Japanese as a framework for their drafting. When the Japanese suggested changes (from a unicameral legislature to a bicameral legislature, for example) those changes were incorporated into the 'US version.' Again, this is a closer example in my mind, as the US essentially drafted the constitution for the Japanese, but the fundamental changes a) were made with input and negotiation from the Japanese and b) did not seek to impose a form of government that was entirely unknown to the Japenese people. In Iraq, we decided what was best for Iraq without input from Iraqi's (Ahmed Chalabi not withstanding, and certainly no prominent Sunnis because they were most likely members of the Baath party), and sought to fundamentally change the system of government to a form that was unrecognizable to most Iraqis, but known and favorable to us. That certainly makes it easier for us to say 'who wouldn't want a democracy?' but we make that call with our own experiences in our mind, and assume that circumstances are the same elsewhere for others. Missing is any discussion on the legality or illegality of the act.
Now, if you also consider the historical circumstances, where Germany and Japan sought to rule the world through aggression (i.e. territorial expansion), and waged war for six years leaving behind societies in ruins, the 'lack of condemnation' can be explained. In scale, there is no comparison between the circumstances that led to the changes following Worlld War II and the changes we thrust upon Iraq. (I would be happy to point out the differences between Saddam and Hitler or Hirohito, but that might lead us astray.) Any shorter scale conflict examples? It was four years ago today that Bush declared "Mission Accomplished." We did not fundamentally alter the constitution of Bosnia after we intervened, nor did we make changes in Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, or any of the other countries our military forces have invaded to depose 'bad guys.'
My point is that there is no basis for US to have fundamentally altered the constituion and government of Iraq. If the circumstances surrounding our invasion of Iraq were similar to those of World War II, I might have a differnt view on what was done in Iraq. However, saying that we are doing it for benevolent reasons (benevolent in our eyes) is insufficient. Imposing our preferred form of government on Iraq is no different than Syria imposing its favored form of government on Lebanon, or the former Soviet Union on any number of its satellites, and I am certain they used benevolent terms to describe their actions as well.
r.johnson
Oh Yeah
I did forget to mention that it is the Fourth Geneva Convention (I believe) that prohibits an occupying power from altering the domestic laws of an occupied territory. That treaty took effect in 1949, after the changes mentioned in Germany and Japan.
r.johnson
Altering laws
So let me get this straight...if a white supremacist military force took over, let's say, Kenya, and made it legal to murder and rape black people because they were subhuman, international "law" (the most ludicrous misnomer in political parlance) would prohibit anyone from doing anything about it?
Dont Be Absurd
First, that is a non-sequitur. It would be analogous to say that International law prohibits the military force from changing the laws in Kenya. 'Undoing' the changes illegally enacted would not be prohibited.
Second, use of force is prohibited under international law, except in three narrowly defined circumstances: 1) self defense; 2) when authorized by the UN; and 3) a recognized humanitarian intervention. (Maybe now you will see why the Bush administration made the arguments it did for invading Iraq.) If what you describe took place, then yes, there are plenty of things that a duly authorized power could do about it. Could anyone? Absolutely not.
Third, there is nothing ludicrus about a concept, international law, that was even enshrined as part of our constitution.
r.johnson
My mistake, in part
Your first point -- I actually didn't make my illustration clear. I meant "a military force" to mean a domestic group taking power in a military coup (so that then they would actually be the existing government of the country). But I'm guessing your response would be that that situation would fall under the category of "humanitarian intervention." Now, why you wouldn't recognize toppling Saddam as, among other things, a humanitarian intervention, is another question.
Your second point -- although there are valid arguments to be made for toppling Saddam for all three of those reasons, I'm not willing to have US foreign policy limited by the restrictions you describe, international "law" or no.
Your third point -- I didn't describe the concept as ludicrous, I described the language as ludicrous. Treaties, conventions, agreements, and customs are arrangements between governments, not law.
I would be happy to address
I would be happy to address why our intervention in Iraq does not meet any of the criteria, including humanitarian intervention, but it is the subject of a much longer post or posts. Here are my comments from the past.
http://www.desententia.com/desenarchive/2005/05/iraq_and_the_se.html
http://www.desententia.com/desenarchive/2005/05/the_rationale_f.html
http://www.desententia.com/desenarchive/2005/06/the_rationale_f_1.html
http://www.desententia.com/desenarchive/2005/06/the_rationale_f_2.html
And whether you personally are willing to have US foreigh policy limited by restrictions imposed by law is irrelevant: the US as a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter is bound by the rules, whether you call them a law, treaty, or international agreement. Either way, the US is obligated to follow the rule. (You are not saying we should only follow the laws we agree with and not the laws that we dont, are you? If so, see if you can square that with Hobbes, Locke or Montesquieu, or any other philosopher of law. I think you will find the principle soundly rejected from the most conservative to the most liberal philosophers.)
r.johnson
rationales
Well, I must say that I find those to be largely reasonable criticisms of the decision to go to war (that is different from saying that I find them compelling, but it is important to say). But I remain unconvinced -- it does seem to me, for example, that you take too narrow a view of the concept of self-defense. Can we agree that if French military planes had intentionally hit the twin towers (and threatened continued attacks), we would have been justified in invading France? But we are now fighting an enemy (even if you narrowly define the enemy as Al Qaeda) without borders, who hides behind willing enabler states for shelter and succor. In that kind of world, isn't it reasonable to give notice to rogue regimes that if they offer that shelter and succor to terrorists that have declared war on us, they themselves are fair game for attack (by comparison, if I'm willingly hiding a murderer in my home, the police certainly shouldn't respect my property rights)? And practically speaking, how else would you suggest we fight those who have declared war on us?
On the "international law" front, I feel sure we're not going to make much headway with each other, but I'll try to give you my perspective. Laws are generally imposed on us by the government (representing us, but we have no direct choice in most of the laws they pass), and generally enforced by the government. The only ethical choice we have in the matter is to try to convince the government to change the law, or to leave the country. Following the law, then, is not a voluntary action, ethically speaking -- it's an ethical duty. Treaties (and the rest, but I'll abbreviate as "treaties"), on the other hand, are voluntarily entered into by the US, when it seems beneficial (including the "benefits" of ethics) to do so. They are temporal agreements entered into by even more temporal governments, negotiated and ratified by even more temporal leaders. When they're no longer relevant, no one is obligated by allegiance some higher global authority to continue to honor them (see: ABM treaty).
How does this all apply to the US invasion of Iraq? I'm not sure it does, directly. I have never seen a treaty where the US agreed never to use military force without UN permission. And, having looked over the Fourth Geneva Convention, my opinion is that it requires a rather tortured reading to make it relevant to the current situation.
Look Harder.
(I am really just trying to see how narrow these margins will go.)
The problem that I have with your first paragraph is that it assumes Saddam Hussein and Iraq were harboring those who attacked us on September 11. They were not. Those who attacked us were Islamic fundamentalists who also opposed Saddam Hussein, one of the most secular leaders in the middle east in a secular (by middle eastern standards) country. Islamists posed a threat to Saddam's power because the Sunni (Saddam) relied upon brute force to keep the majority, the Shia (more closely associated with Islamic fundamentalism), in check. So what you are saying is that the meglomaniac, bent on keeping power and control, would welcome those who could easily turn thier aggression toward him and destroy his power because... he knew it would make the United States angry? (And generally speaking, even if you are harboring a known criminal in your home, the laws still prevent unfettered access. Like it or not, the Fourth Amendment REQUIRES that the authorities obtain a warrant.)
Your thoughts on government and domestic and international law are interesting. Again, they are the subject of another post, as I would beg to differ on whether the ABM is 'irrelevant' or outdated. I just posted a piece on it on August 26, but generally, one nation does not havbe the right to unilaterally withdraw from a bilateral or multilateral agreement.
And it is a cruel pun to say that the Geneva convention requires a 'tortured' reading to make it applicable, given the US actions in Guantanamo. Ironically, it was Adolph Hitler who last argued that the Geneva convention was outdated and did not apply, and his officers were then executed for adopting the reasoning. If only we listen to the admonishions on Justice Robert Jackson (John Robert's 'favorite' justice and a strong proponent of international law.)
If you have not found a treaty where the US agreed to refrain from using military force without permission, you only need to read the preamble to the UN Charter. http://www.hrweb.org/legal/unchartr.html How about Article 2, Section 4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." Under Article 39, it is the Security Council who determines whether use of force is required.
r.johnson
Excellent article.
Hansen's articles continue to be worth the time. Thanks for the link Michael.
Post new comment